I am not too sure I am anglican.

[Colabomb]

Hi guys.

I am having some issues that I have to mull over for a while concerning the concept of Apostolic succession, and its role in the Sacraments.


I am a creedal orthodox Christian, no problem there. I just need to answer some questions before I can call myself an Anglican.

There is no saying that I may end up coming back to Anglicanism, but for now, it is dishonest to wear a celtic cross that may not describe what I believe.

In Christ the Living King!
John ><>

(Yes, I'll stick around and jabber on with you guys, and yes, I'll continue to man the 1611 bank.)

[Zacharias]

What denomination or belief is closest to what you believe? :)

[Colabomb]

What denomination or belief is closest to what you believe? :)
I am not too sure at this point. But probably more along the more "catholicly" lines of Lutheranism, although... I am not too sure about Lutheranism, because I can't bring myself to call the pope the AntiChrist..

[Fish and Bread]

Hi ColaBomb,

I'm glad you've decided to stick with the forum as you go through the discerning process. I wanted to point out a couple of things that might help you:

1. Anglicanism doesn't require a belief that the historic episcopate is necessary to confect valid sacraments. I don't see it anywhere in my copy of the BCP, I don't believe it, and I suspect one of my two priests does not either (Though he's never stated it outright). ECUSA's Called To Common Mission agreement with ELCA where we agree to allow Lutheran pastors ordained prior to 2001 who are not in historic succession to serve in our parishes with permission of the bishops involved indicates as much. The idea that the historic episcopate is necessary to confect sacraments is simply one belief on the Anglican spectrum. The universal Anglican belief is simply that the historic episcopate is desireable, reasons unspecified. :) So many feel it's just a sign of God's grace and love that is good, but not strictly necessary.

2. I think ELCA actually renounces Luther's idea of the Pope as antichrist, but don't hold me to that because I'm not sure if I'm remembering that correctly. :)

John

[Colabomb]

Hi ColaBomb,

I'm glad you've decided to stick with the forum as you go through the discerning process. I wanted to point out a couple of things that might help you:

1. Anglicanism doesn't require a belief that the historic episcopate is necessary to confect valid sacraments. I don't see it anywhere in my copy of the BCP, I don't believe it, and I suspect one of my two priests does not either (Though he's never stated it outright). Our Called To Common Mission agreement with ELCA where we agree to allow Lutheran pastors ordained prior to 2001 who are not in historic succession to serve in our parishes with permission of the bishops involved indicates as much. The idea that the historic episcopate is necessary to confect sacraments is simply one belief on the Anglican spectrum. The universal Anglican belief is simply that the historic episcopate is desireable, reasons unspecified. :) So many feel it's just a sign of God's grace and love that is good, but not strictly necessary.

2. I think ELCA actually renounces Luther's idea of the Pope as antichrist, but don't hold me to that because I'm not sure if I'm remembering that correctly. :)

John
I couldn't go to the ELCA, too liberal for me.

I'll mull over your point about the Apostolic Succession.

Any help would be appriciated.

Thanks.

[gtsecc]

What about Eastern Orthodoxy?

[Colabomb]

What about Eastern Orthodoxy?
My problem is with the Role of Apostolic Succession in The sacraments, Whether or not a Tactile succession of BIshops is really necessary for the Sacraments to be valid.

Orthodoxy holds that it does.

I may come right back to Anglicanism. I don't know where God will lead me. I am not saying that I am not Anglican, I am just saying that I am not sure.

[gtsecc]

I think everyone holds that belief except for Lutherans.

[Albion]

My problem is with the Role of Apostolic Succession in The sacraments, Whether or not a Tactile succession of BIshops is really necessary for the Sacraments to be valid.

Hi, Cola. I'd say that it isn't necessary, but that doesn't help you much.

One point about Lutherans that might be worth mentioning, though, if you feel called in that direction but worry over the anti-Christ idea, is that regardless of this appearing in historical records, you can hardly find a Lutheran who sees it that way today. It never comes up in a sermon or Bible class as a doctrine, etc. It's something like Luther and the Jews--his own views at a different time and nothing that defines the churches now. We Anglicans aren't soft on divorce despite Henry, and Lutherans are not convinced that the Pope is the anti-Christ because of what people in the 16th century thought.

The only Lutheran churches that might still make a point about this, but even then very rarely, would be the smaller ones. You would not have that problem in the Missouri Synod, for instance, and it may well be close to what you are seeking.

[UberLutheran]

I am not too sure at this point. But probably more along the more "catholicly" lines of Lutheranism, although... I am not too sure about Lutheranism, because I can't bring myself to call the pope the AntiChrist..

We Lutherans (at least, those of us over in the ELCA) don't call the Pope "the AntiChrist", nor do we believe the Pope is "the AntiChrist".

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

Actually, I thought the best Pope (and possibly the best Church leader) of the 20th century was Pope John XXIII.

Catholics are just as welcome to gag down lutefisk with us as Anglicans are!

[UberLutheran]

I couldn't go to the ELCA, too liberal for me.

I'll mull over your point about the Apostolic Succession.

Any help would be appriciated.

Thanks.

...but I find them rigid and highly judgmental. (I didn't take at all kindly to being told that they would not allow me to share a table with them at dinner because, as an ELCA member, I was too "heterodox".)

[CaDan]

...but I find them rigid and highly judgmental. (I didn't take at all kindly to being told that they would not allow me to share a table with them at dinner because, as an ELCA member, I was too "heterodox".)

Actually, LC-MS does officially hold the Pope (or at least the papacy if not the individuals holding the office) to be the Antichrist.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2217

[Colabomb]

Hi, Cola. I'd say that it isn't necessary, but that doesn't help you much.

One point about Lutherans that might be worth mentioning, though, if you feel called in that direction but worry over the anti-Christ idea, is that regardless of this appearing in historical records, you can hardly find a Lutheran who sees it that way today. It never comes up in a sermon or Bible class as a doctrine, etc. It's something like Luther and the Jews--his own views at a different time and nothing that defines the churches now. We Anglicans aren't soft on divorce despite Henry, and Lutherans are not convinced that the Pope is the anti-Christ because of what people in the 16th century thought.

The only Lutheran churches that might still make a point about this, but even then very rarely, would be the smaller ones. You would not have that problem in the Missouri Synod, for instance, and it may well be close to what you are seeking.
Could you explain further, because I like Anglicanism, and I don't really want to leave over a non-essential.

What is the Reformed View Albion?

[Albion]

Could you explain further, because I like Anglicanism, and I don't really want to leave over a non-essential.

What is the Reformed View Albion?

Cola, my friend, I am not sure exactly what is in your mind, and so I am reluctant to start handing out specific advice. Maybe you could narrow the concerns for me. Anyway, I spent a lot of time earlier in Lutheran Churches myself and feel reasonably comfortable commenting on that side of your post.

It does sound to me as though your profile of a perfect church for yourself might be, as speculated, a Lutheran one. That's not unusual coming from any Anglican. The two ideas I wanted to offer were: 1) whatever church it is, we often make a mistake by drawing conclusions from what we've read, especially if it is something general like a religious encyclopedia not put out by that church itself. We all try to "read up" and inform ourselves, but the reality is usually a little different, and 2) this particular (anti-Christ) teaching is so minor in the lives of ordinary Lutherans and the churches, clergy, etc. that I don't think you should make it a deal-breaker. CaDan's link is a good one to reflect upon. There we see the idea put into a less personal and certainly not immediate frame. It's true that I shouldn't have shoved it off entirely to an opinion of Luther himself, but it still is safe to say, I believe, that it is as obscure as some of the position statements coming from the various Anglican commissions on this or that. This may still trouble you, and if so, that's fine, but you will not be having this presented to you in the pew like Sola Scriptura, the Real Presence or all the other hallmarks of the Lutheran faith.

On the flip side, I always find Lutherans, if however well grounded in the faith and serious about it, to be less reverent and contemplative when it comes to the liturgy (which itself is as good as ours). There's a little more Protestantism in behavior than I like. You'll probably have to do a little fieldwork to see if this is true.

[Wigglesworth]

A big factor in my selection of a church, or a particular tradition, has been the character of the people there. If I didn't get along well with the people, I was less persuaded that their doctrine or tradition was correct.

If people aren't exhibiting Jesus Christ's love and the fruits of the Holy Spirit, then I am less likely to believe they are teaching Truth.

I think this has held true for any denomination, or the few radicals in any one denomination or tradition.

[Colabomb]

to clarfiy my issue:

My question is concerning Apostolic Succession and the Sacraments.

Is a valid line of Apostolic Succession necessary for the Eucharist (or other Sacraments) to be valid?

If so, where does that leave baptists etc. who do not have apostolic succession? Christ said to eat His Body and Drink His Blood, and whoever does not does not have life in them.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me I am at a Crux, either Apostolic Succession is necessary, and Salvation is tied in those Churches with Apostolic Succession, or it is not necessary at all.

Of course, the more I think about it, what does this have to do with me leaving Anglicanism? Absolutely nothing. Either way, Anglicans DO have the Sacraments....

I'll change my symbol back.

But I would still like some help concerning the questions stated above, if anyone can.

[julian the apostate]

2. That we believe that all who have been duly baptized with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, are members of the Holy Catholic Church.

from the lambeth quadrilateral 1886

[gtsecc]

to clarfiy my issue:

My question is concerning Apostolic Succession and the Sacraments.

Is a valid line of Apostolic Succession necessary for the Eucharist (or other Sacraments) to be valid?

If so, where does that leave baptists etc. who do not have apostolic succession? Christ said to eat His Body and Drink His Blood, and whoever does not does not have life in them.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me I am at a Crux, either Apostolic Succession is necessary, and Salvation is tied in those Churches with Apostolic Succession, or it is not necessary at all.

Of course, the more I think about it, what does this have to do with me leaving Anglicanism? Absolutely nothing. Either way, Anglicans DO have the Sacraments....

I'll change my symbol back.

But I would still like some help concerning the questions stated above, if anyone can.

It is difficult to say what is the minimum standard for worship, sacraments, salvation, etc...
Surely God will find a way to save "good" Budists who spend years in pray, but have a very poor understanding of the Trinity and never recieved the sacraments. But, we don't want to try to do the minimum. I think the idea of what are the essentials comes from the problem faced during the reformation when it was clear the Roman Catholic church was corrupt and somethings needed to be stripped away. So while we won't say that there is not salvation outside of the sacraments, we will still do our best to stay in an Apostolic and sacramental tradition - Old Catholic, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox.

[SeenAndUnseen]

Here is something from ECUSA's website: (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_13758_ENG_HTM.htm)

"Apostolic Succession

The belief that bishops are the successors to the apostles and that episcopal authority is derived from the apostles by an unbroken succession in the ministry. This authority is specifically derived through the laying on of hands for the ordination of bishops in lineal sequence from the apostles, through their performing the ministry of the apostles, and through their succession in episcopal sees traced back to the apostles. The apostolic succession is continued in the bishops of the Episcopal Church, who seek to "carry on the apostolic work of leading, supervising, and uniting the Church" (BCP, p. 510). The apostolic succession may also be understood as a continuity in doctrinal teaching from the time of the apostles to the present. The apostolic succession is said to be a "sign, though not a guarantee" of the church's basic continuity with the apostles and their time. The meaning of the apostolic succession relative to the historic episcopate has been a significant issue in Lutheran-Episcopal dialogues. See Bishop."


It sounds to me as though the definition of what constitutes valid apostolic succession is broader than what Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches profess. It sounds like it is saying succession means not only hand to hand laying on of hands, etc... down a physical, unbroken line, but also can mean the continuity of carrying forth the work of the apostles as they were sent out by Christ to do. That is more in line with my personal beliefs about it, too. I have never agreed that the only churches with valid sacraments are ones that can prove an unbroken line of succession via laying on of hands. Hopefully, this does not put me outside the Anglican Communion.

:D

[Wigglesworth]

Is a valid line of Apostolic Succession necessary for the Eucharist (or other Sacraments) to be valid?

If so, where does that leave baptists etc. who do not have apostolic succession? Christ said to eat His Body and Drink His Blood, and whoever does not does not have life in them.

Baptists and other nonsacramental churches do not claim that they have sacraments. So, if they don't want them, who am I to tell them they don't have them? It's not much of a jump to say that Baptist crackers do not host the Real Presence of the Body of Christ if they already say they do not. They say their communion is a symbol, and so it is.

From the perspective of faith, we have sacraments because we believe we have them. The priest's faith in his prayer for the consecration of the elements of communion is necessary for the consecration. The Baptist pastor has no such faith that his prayer fashions a "sacrament."

I guess the kicker to this is whether you believe you are receiving the Body and Blood if you receive communion in the Baptist church. Is it the Body and Blood because you believe it is? Or, is it the Body and Blood only if a priest ordained by a bishop consecrated in apostolic succession consecrates it as such?

I know I just basically restated the original question. The difference to me is not whether nonsacramental churches have sacraments, but whether my faith makes a difference when I receive in a nonsacramental church.

I believe the receiver's faith plays a part in sacramentality of communion. On the other hand, I remember that Father Rick mentioned in another thread that someone who did not believe in the sacrament (a noncatholic) was healed after receiving it. I believe the different scenarios have different results.

(1) A catholic priest provides a sacrament to the catholic. This is a sacrament.

(2) A catholic priest provides a sacrament to the noncatholic. This is a sacrament whether the receiver knows it or not.

(3) A noncatholic minister provides communion to a noncatholic. This is a symbol that neither believes is a sacrament.

(4) A noncatholic minister provides communion to a catholic. This has, in my opinion, sacramental value, because the catholic receiver can believe it is more than grape juice and crackers.

I'm no authority on this though, and I do not claim it is orthodox, let alone infallible.

As to the part about "whoever does not does not have life in them," even the catholic churches teach that someone can receive the gift of eternal life without receiving the Eucharist. Salvation means different things to different people. Baptists want to go to Heaven, and Catholics teach that Baptists can go to Heaven - even without going to mass.

:)

[svdbygrace]

Personally, I believe that all Christian Churches have valid Sacraments/Ordinances if...

1) They observe the Sacraments/Ordinances in Faith.

2) They do it, as commanded (Baptism-with Water, in the Name of the Trinity/ Eucharist/Holy Communion... in Rememberance of Christ)... and as it was orginally meant to be.

3) They do so out of the heart, not just because it's Sunday (fill in the blank) and that's we do.

:preach: :prayer: :priest: :crossrc:

Revision: 4) It is done, as an act of worship, and service to God, not to humankind (ie: partake Holy Communion, and you'll become rich over night...)

[Father Rick]

Cola...


One of the Church fathers once said, "How can one believe, save one has first doubted". It is a good thing to question one's faith to determine exactly what one does and does not believe. I went through a similar process of questioning just about at your age-- and that questioning eventually led me out of a Pentecostal denomination to the Old Catholics. Not that I reject my Pentecostal roots-- I relish them and firmly classify myself as Charismatic-- I just found that there were certain points of theology I disagreed with and I 'fit' better in a different place.

As to Apostolic Succession, I firmly believe in succession-- in fact that was one of the biggest issues that led me to the historic churches. My view on sacraments/non-succession churches is this:

Baptism is the ONE essential sacrament. (Let's not get into the 'baptism of intent', 'baptism of blood', etc. debates guys!) ALL Christian churches practice baptism (with the exception of the Salvation Army, I believe). As to the other sacraments, Protestant churches have a variety of names for what they practice such as 'ordinance', 'symbol', etc. I believe that while the Christians in those churches are truly saved, and most are well-intentioned, that they are just 'missing something' of the grace of God that could be available to them. That is not to belittle those groups in any way-- as many times there are things we can learn from them as well regarding different aspects of the nature of Christ. All of which is why for me, personally, I find myself in a sacramental church but often fellowshipping with those in a variety of churches in my area. (Hey-- I almost sound like a broad church Anglican!;) )

[julian the apostate]

Baptists and other nonsacramental churches do not claim that they have sacraments. So, if they don't want them, who am I to tell them they don't have them? It's not much of a jump to say that Baptist crackers do not host the Real Presence of the Body of Christ if they already say they do not. They say their communion is a symbol, and so it is.


roflmao,, good point

the roman catholic catechism says that communion in churches other than the orthodox and roman churches ,, even in churches that are far away from the traditional understanding of communion ,,

that those communions are still moments of and oppurtunity to receive grace from Christ

[Colabomb]

Baptists and other nonsacramental churches do not claim that they have sacraments. So, if they don't want them, who am I to tell them they don't have them? It's not much of a jump to say that Baptist crackers do not host the Real Presence of the Body of Christ if they already say they do not. They say their communion is a symbol, and so it is.


roflmao,, good point

the roman catholic catechism says that communion in churches other than the orthodox and roman churches ,, even in churches that are far away from the traditional understanding of communion ,,

that those communions are still moments of and oppurtunity to receive grace from Christ
My fear is not for my own Salvation. My fear is for theirs.

I know what Anglicanism says, I know what the Vatican says.

My Question is what did Jesus say, what did the Early bishops of the Church say?

Jesus makes it clear, he that does not eat His Body and Drink His Blood has no Life in Him. If the Sacrament is indeed bound to Apostolic Succession, logically those who eat nothing but a cracker would fall into that category.

I have no fear for myself, I am secure in Christ.

Father Rick, I myself have gone through major faith questioning before. I used to be a Jack Chick Fundementalist. Through Study and Prayer I found my way to Sacramental Christianity.

My major delimma is that it seems everyone is ignoring John chapter six, and the implications scare me.

To me there seems to be two real options.

1) Apostolic Succession is necessary for a valid sacrament, and thus non-Apostolic Christians are condemned.

2) Apostolic Succession is not necessary for a valid sacrament, and thus Non-Apostolic CHristians are not condemned, they simply recieve a Sacrament without realizing it.

[UberLutheran]

Actually, LC-MS does officially hold the Pope (or at least the papacy if not the individuals holding the office) to be the Antichrist.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2217

I think had my church been LC-MS, we probably wouldn't have offered to have a Roman Catholic parish share facilities with us after their church burned down until their new church was built.

Actually, that parish is still our "sister church". :thumbsup:

[UberLutheran]

John 3:17-18
17 For God didn't send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through him.
18 He who believes in him is not judged. He who doesn't believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only born Son of God.

Romans 14:1-14
But receive him who is weak in faith, not for judging thoughts.
2 One man has faith to eat all things, but he who is weak eats herbs.
3 Don't let him who eats despise him who doesn't eat. Don't let him who doesn't eat judge him who eats, for God has received him.
4 Who are you who judge the servant of another? To his own lord he stands or falls. Yes, he will be made to stand, for God has power to make him stand.
5 One man esteems one day above another. Another esteems every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind.
6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks. He who doesn't eat, to the Lord he doesn't eat, and gives God thanks.
7 For none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself.
8 For if we live, we live to the Lord. Or if we die, we die to the Lord. If therefore we live or die, we are the Lord's.
9 For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11 For it is written, "'As I live,' says the Lord, 'to me every knee will bow. Every tongue will confess to God.'"
12 So then each one of us will give account of himself to God.
13 Therefore Let's not judge one another any more, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block in his brother's way, or an occasion of falling.
14 I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself; except that to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

How we perceive the Sacraments (or even apostolic succession) is not what saves us. (Understand in my saying this, I do accept apostolic succession and I ardently believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist).

What saves us is Christ's grace, which we receive as an unmerited gift thorugh faith.

God's big enough to be able to work out all the differences of opinions between and within the denominations. Let's leave that job to Him.



My fear is not for my own Salvation. My fear is for theirs.

I know what Anglicanism says, I know what the Vatican says.

My Question is what did Jesus say, what did the Early bishops of the Church say?

Jesus makes it clear, he that does not eat His Body and Drink His Blood has no Life in Him. If the Sacrament is indeed bound to Apostolic Succession, logically those who eat nothing but a cracker would fall into that category.

I have no fear for myself, I am secure in Christ.

Father Rick, I myself have gone through major faith questioning before. I used to be a Jack Chick Fundementalist. Through Study and Prayer I found my way to Sacramental Christianity.

My major delimma is that it seems everyone is ignoring John chapter six, and the implications scare me.

To me there seems to be two real options.

1) Apostolic Succession is necessary for a valid sacrament, and thus non-Apostolic Christians are condemned.

2) Apostolic Succession is not necessary for a valid sacrament, and thus Non-Apostolic CHristians are not condemned, they simply recieve a Sacrament without realizing it.

[julian the apostate]

cs lewis said

our Lord said take and eat, not take and understand

[Wigglesworth]

:scratch: Perhaps we should not read John 6:53 literally to say that people go to Hell without a sacramental Eucharist. I believe to do so is inconsistent with the other verses of John 6 and the rest of the Gospel.

Someone smarter than me read it another way:


It has been wretchedly misconstrued by the church of Rome for the support of their monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation, which gives the lie to our senses, contradicts the nature of a sacrament, and overthrows all convincing evidence. They, like these Jews here, understand it of a corporal and carnal eating of Christ’s body, like Nicodemus, ch. 3, 4. The Lord’s supper was not yet instituted, and therefore it could have no reference to that; it is a spiritual eating and drinking that is here spoken of, not a sacramental. [3.] It is misunderstood by many ignorant carnal people, who hence infer that, if they take the sacrament when they die, they shall certainly go to heaven, which, as it makes many that are weak causelessly uneasy if they want it, so it makes many that are wicked causelessly easy if they have it. Therefore, (2.) Let us see how this discourse of Christ is to be understood. [1.] What is meant by the flesh and blood of Christ. It is called (v. 53), The flesh of the Son of man, and his blood, his as Messiah and Mediator: the flesh and blood which he assumed in his incarnation (Heb. 2:14), and which he gave up in his death and suffering: my flesh which I will give to be crucified and slain. It is said to be given for the life of the world, that is, First, Instead of the life of the world, which was forfeited by sin, Christ gives his own flesh as a ransom or counterprice. Christ was our bail, bound body for body (as we say), and therefore his life must go for ours, that ours may be spared. Here am I, let these go their way. Secondly, In order to the life of the world, to purchase a general offer of eternal life to all the world, and the special assurances of it to all believers. So that the flesh and blood of the Son of man denote the Redeemer incarnate and dying; Christ and him crucified, and the redemption wrought out by him, with all the precious benefits of redemption: pardon of sin, acceptance with God, the adoption of sons, access to the throne of grace, the promises of the covenant, and eternal life; these are called the flesh and blood of Christ, 1. Because they are purchased by his flesh and blood, by the breaking of his body, and shedding of his blood. Well may the purchased privileges be denominated from the price that was paid for them, for it puts a value upon them; write upon them pretium sanguinis—the price of blood. 2. Because they are meat and drink to our souls. Flesh with the blood was prohibited (Gen. 9:4), but the privileges of the gospel are as flesh and blood to us, prepared for the nourishment of our souls. He had before compared himself to bread, which is necessary food; here to flesh, which is delicious. It is a feast of fat things, Isa. 25:6. The soul is satisfied with Christ as with marrow and fatness, Ps. 63:5. It is meat indeed, and drink indeed; truly so, that is spiritually; so Dr. Whitby; as Christ is called the true vine; or truly meat, in opposition to the shows and shadows with which the world shams off those that feed upon it. In Christ and his gospel there is real supply, solid satisfaction; that is meat indeed, and drink indeed, which satiates and replenishes, Jer. 31:25, 26. [2.] What is meant by eating this flesh and drinking this blood, which is so necessary and beneficial; it is certain that is means neither more nor less than believing in Christ. As we partake of meat and drink by eating and drinking, so we partake of Christ and his benefits by faith: and believing in Christ includes these four things, which eating and drinking do:— First, It implies an appetite to Christ. This spiritual eating and drinking begins with hungering and thirsting (Mt. 5:6), earnest and importunate desires after Christ, not willing to take up with any thing short of an interest in him: "Give me Christ or else I die.’’ Secondly, An application of Christ to ourselves. Meat looked upon will not nourish us, but meat fed upon, and so made our own, and as it were one with us. We must so accept of Christ as to appropriate him to ourselves: my Lord, and my God, ch. 20:28. Thirdly, A delight in Christ and his salvation. The doctrine of Christ crucified must be meat and drink to us, most pleasant and delightful. We must feast upon the dainties of the New Testament in the blood of Christ, taking as great a complacency in the methods which Infinite Wisdom has taken to redeem and save us as ever we did in the most needful supplies or grateful delights of nature. Fourthly, A derivation of nourishment from him and a dependence upon him for the support and comfort of our spiritual life, and the strength, growth, and vigour of the new man. To feed upon Christ is to do all in his name, in union with him, and by virtue drawn from him; it is to live upon him as we do upon our meat. How our bodies are nourished by our food we cannot describe, but that they are so we know and find; so it is with this spiritual nourishment. Our Saviour was so well pleased with this metaphor (as very significant and expressive) that, when afterwards he would institute some outward sensible signs, by which to represent our communicating of the benefits of his death, he chose those of eating and drinking, and made them sacramental actions. (3.) Having thus explained the general meaning of this part of Christ’s discourse, the particulars are reducible to two heads:— [1.] The necessity of our feeding upon Christ (v. 53): Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. That is, First, "It is a certain sign that you have no spiritual life in you if you have no desire towards Christ, nor delight in him.’’ If the soul does not hunger and thirst, certainly it does not live: it is a sign that we are dead indeed if we are dead to such meat and drink as this. When artificial bees, that by curious springs were made to move to and fro, were to be distinguished from natural ones (they say), it was done by putting honey among them, which the natural bees only flocked to, but the artificial ones minded not, for they had no life in them. Secondly, "It is certain that you can have no spiritual life, unless you derive it from Christ by faith; separated from him you can do nothing.’’ Faith in Christ is the primum vivens—the first living principle of grace; without it we have not the truth of spiritual life, nor any title to eternal life: our bodies may as well live without meat as our souls without Christ. [2.] The benefit and advantage of it, in two things:— First, We shall be one with Christ, as our bodies are with our food when it is digested (v. 56): He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, that lives by faith in Christ crucified (it is spoken of as a continued act), he dwelleth in me, and I in him. By faith we have a close and intimate union with Christ; he is in us, and we in him, ch. 17:21–23; 1 Jn. 3:24. Believers dwell in Christ as their stronghold or city of refuge; Christ dwells in them as the master of the house, to rule it and provide for it. Such is the union between Christ and believers that he shares in their griefs, and they share in his graces and joys; he sups with them upon their bitter herbs, and they with him upon his rich dainties. It is an inseparable union, like that between the body and digested food, Rom. 8:35; 1 Jn. 4:13. Secondly, We shall live, shall live eternally, by him, as our bodies live by our food. a. We shall live by him (v. 57): As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. We have here the series and order of the divine life. ( a. ) God is the living Father, hath life in and of himself. I am that I am is his name for ever. ( b. ) Jesus Christ, as Mediator, lives by the Father; he has life in himself (ch. 5:26), but he has it of the Father. He that sent him, not only qualified him with that life which was necessary to so great an undertaking, but constituted him the treasury of divine life to us; he breathed into the second Adam the breath of spiritual lives, as into the first Adam the breath of natural lives. ( c. ) True believers receive this divine life by virtue of their union with Christ, which is inferred from the union between the Father and the Son, as it is compared to it, ch. 17:21. For therefore he that eateth me, or feeds on me, even he shall live by me: those that live upon Christ shall live by him. The life of believers is had from Christ (ch. 1:16); it is hid with Christ (Col. 3:4), we live by him as the members by the head, the branches by the root; because he lives, we shall live also. b. We shall live eternally by him (v. 54): Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, as prepared in the gospel to be the food of souls, he hath eternal life, he hath it now, as v. 40. He has that in him which is eternal life begun; he has the earnest and foretaste of it, and the hope of it; he shall live for ever, v. 58. His happiness shall run parallel with the longest line of eternity itself.

[Colabomb]

I sincerely thank you all for your help and patience.

I have a few questions though if you don't mind.

Is there any Scripture and Tradition to back up a non-literal rendering of John 6?

Is there any Scripture or Tradition to indicate that Apostolic Succession is not necessary for the Validity of the Eucharist?

Is there any Scripture and Tradition that shows valid Eucharist outside of Apostolic Succession?

[UberLutheran]

I sincerely thank you all for your help and patience.

I have a few questions though if you don't mind.

Is there any Scripture and Tradition to back up a non-literal rendering of John 6?

Is there any Scripture or Tradition to indicate that Apostolic Succession is not necessary for the Validity of the Eucharist?

Is there any Scripture and Tradition that shows valid Eucharist outside of Apostolic Succession?

There's also the entire letter to the Galatians.

Too bad Paul seems to have fallen out of favor with so many people today. A lot of what makes Christianity "work" is found in Paul -- including issues like these.

[svdbygrace]

What a wonderful post! :)



Cola...


One of the Church fathers once said, "How can one believe, save one has first doubted". It is a good thing to question one's faith to determine exactly what one does and does not believe. I went through a similar process of questioning just about at your age-- and that questioning eventually led me out of a Pentecostal denomination to the Old Catholics. Not that I reject my Pentecostal roots-- I relish them and firmly classify myself as Charismatic-- I just found that there were certain points of theology I disagreed with and I 'fit' better in a different place.

As to Apostolic Succession, I firmly believe in succession-- in fact that was one of the biggest issues that led me to the historic churches. My view on sacraments/non-succession churches is this:

Baptism is the ONE essential sacrament. (Let's not get into the 'baptism of intent', 'baptism of blood', etc. debates guys!) ALL Christian churches practice baptism (with the exception of the Salvation Army, I believe). As to the other sacraments, Protestant churches have a variety of names for what they practice such as 'ordinance', 'symbol', etc. I believe that while the Christians in those churches are truly saved, and most are well-intentioned, that they are just 'missing something' of the grace of God that could be available to them. That is not to belittle those groups in any way-- as many times there are things we can learn from them as well regarding different aspects of the nature of Christ. All of which is why for me, personally, I find myself in a sacramental church but often fellowshipping with those in a variety of churches in my area. (Hey-- I almost sound like a broad church Anglican!;) )

[Fish and Bread]

Is there any Scripture or Tradition to indicate that Apostolic Succession is not necessary for the Validity of the Eucharist?

Is there any Scripture and Tradition that shows valid Eucharist outside of Apostolic Succession?

Jesus famously asks in scripture (paraphrased) "What Father, if a child asked for bread, would give him a stone?". He wasn't referring to communion directly when he said that, but it seems as though it would be applicable to me.

John

[Zacharias]

Jesus famously asks in scripture (paraphrased) "What Father, if a child asked for bread, would give him a stone?". He wasn't referring to communion directly when he said that, but it seems as though it would be applicable to me.

John
Here's Scripture and Tradition that proves Apostolic Succession: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

[Fish and Bread]

Here's Scripture and Tradition that proves Apostolic Succession: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

My friend, what you link to is one possible interpretation of scripture. It seems more likely to me that Jesus in giving authority to the apostles was in fact giving authority to them as representatives of the community of the faithful -- i.e. the universal Christian Church. True apostolic succession comes through entering into the universal Church by faith, having God call you to ministry, and then having the community confirm the call; in my view. Having a line of visible links through laying on of hands to the apostles is nice, but let us remember that it is the rock of Peter's *faith* that is the rock on which the church was built, and it is through our faith by grace that St. Paul tells us that God saves us. Why would God limit himself and cut all his children off from the grace of the sacraments by limiting it to denominations with laying on of hands back to the Apostles only? Remember, Christ told us that circumcision of the heart was more important than circumcision of the body. The heart of Christianity is grace over legalism and in some respects I think a strict requirement of laying on of hands for succession in a link back to the Apostles negates grace and reinstitutes the law.

John

[julian the apostate]

f & b<****e heart of Christianity is grace over legalism

amen

[Albion]

Here's Scripture and Tradition that proves Apostolic Succession: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

Except that no such thing is proven.

The scripture verses relate to the Apostles only, not to thousands of men down through the ages. The body of the Apostles is limited. Paul is added to the number by a direct act after the Ascension, and Matthias replaces one of the twelve. We never read of the Apostles deciding to enlarge their number to a hundred, let's say, for the purposes of a growing church spreading out in all directions.

As for the Tradition, that relates only to ordinations, not Apostolic Succession, per se.

[ethereal hope]

Hi Colabomb! The thing that always did it for me came right from scripture: Paul held it in great importance to get existing groups of believers "established" via appointing elders (laying on of hands) (Titus 1). And not only Paul, of course. Just think: homegrown churches full of believers, needing a presbyter. Baptized Christians meeting every Sunday, but STILL not established without a presbyter.

And the presbyters-to-be were IN the church already, defending the faith and leading the people (because those were qualifications, 1 Tim 3); they just hadn't had the hands laid on them.

If all there was to enjoying the graces of Christ's Passion and Resurrection, was reading the Bible out loud and singing Psalms, why couldn't just the Baptized Christians meet and do that? (Yes, I seriously asked myself that question.) Why did Titus need to STAY on Crete to ensure that these parishes had an Elder?

The answer for me was simple -- the great separator (between a bunch of believers, and Church) is the administering of the Lord's Supper. I mean, we can all worship daily at home, or weekly with other Christians, by singing praises and hymns [as commanded], and we can even opt to "think about" ("remember") Christ's Passion wherever we please. And these are all great things, and needed things.

But Paul thought these groups of believers needed more. And that's my bottom line. The only thing they couldn't really do was administer the Lord's Supper.

[Albion]

Hi Colabomb! The thing that always did it for me came right from scripture: Paul held it in great importance to get existing groups of believers "established" via appointing elders (laying on of hands) (Titus 1). And not only Paul, of course. Just think: homegrown churches full of believers, needing a presbyter. Baptized Christians meeting every Sunday, but STILL not established without a presbyter.

And the presbyters-to-be were IN the church already, defending the faith and leading the people (because those were qualifications, 1 Tim 3); they just hadn't had the hands laid on them.

If all there was to enjoying the graces of Christ's Passion and Resurrection, was reading the Bible out loud and singing Psalms, why couldn't just the Baptized Christians meet and do that? (Yes, I seriously asked myself that question.) Why did Titus need to STAY on Crete to ensure that these parishes had an Elder?

The answer for me was simple -- the great separator (between a bunch of believers, and Church) is the administering of the Lord's Supper. I mean, we can all worship daily at home, or weekly with other Christians, by singing praises and hymns [as commanded], and we can even opt to "think about" ("remember") Christ's Passion wherever we please. And these are all great things, and needed things.

But Paul thought these groups of believers needed more. And that's my bottom line. The only thing they couldn't really do was administer the Lord's Supper.

Very good points...and we're still without a case for Apostolic Succession as it is usually represented.

This fact seems hard to get across, but the NT's witness of Apostles creating elders and sending helpers into the mission fields, and the evidence of how elders operated in the congregations is not proof of Apostolic Succession. What then? It's evidence of most of the rest of what you were observing, specifically that any church chooses a clerical leadership.

No, random members of the congregation can't just take turns playing Pastor. There has to be a systematic method by which the people of God confer pastoral leadership upon individuals who administer the sacraments, preach the word, and all the rest. This is not Apostolic Succession, a line of bishops claiming an Apostolic authority through previous bishops (not elders/presyters/priestsm, but bishops). That theory only gradually emerged later.

[Colabomb]

Very good points...and we're still without a case for Apostolic Succession as it is usually represented.

This fact seems hard to get across, but the NT's witness of Apostles creating elders and sending helpers into the mission fields, and the evidence of how elders operated in the congregations is not proof of Apostolic Succession. What then? It's evidence of most of the rest of what you were observing, specifically that any church chooses a clerical leadership.

No, random members of the congregation can't just take turns playing Pastor. There has to be a systematic method by which the people of God confer pastoral leadership upon individuals who administer the sacraments, preach the word, and all the rest. This is not Apostolic Succession, a line of bishops claiming an Apostolic authority through previous bishops (not elders/presyters/priestsm, but bishops). That theory only gradually emerged later.
It is appearing that Apostolic Succession is indeed a real thing.

But I have yet to see in either Scripture or Tradition that the Sacraments are bound to it. Except perhaps for the authority to proclaim forgiveness of sins.

I may however find something along those lines as I search.

[Wigglesworth]

I'm glad you raised the question. It's making me think. :thumbsup:

[Zacharias]

I'm glad you raised the question. It's making me think. :thumbsup:
Me too. This thread helped bring me back. :)

[Albion]

It is appearing that Apostolic Succession is indeed a real thing.

But I have yet to see in either Scripture or Tradition that the Sacraments are bound to it. Except perhaps for the authority to proclaim forgiveness of sins.

I may however find something along those lines as I search.

I think we may be drawing closer. Apostolic Succession is indeed a real thing to the extent that it has been a view held since about the second century. What is not clearly the "real thing" is whether it is actually Apostolic. It can't be that if it is not in scripture and if its tradition begins several generations after Christ.

But your point about the sacraments is an excellent one, too.

Even if "Apostolic Succession" exists and were, let's say for the sake of the argument, exactly what Christ and the Apostles had in mind...

...what is the power that is conferred?

Yes, that is important to address.

Many say that there is a lineage and then just stipulate what it does. Not what it is, structurally (a line of bishops laying hands on others), but what that does! We can't just guess that it makes sacraments valid and that without the right line, they aren't.

[Wigglesworth]

Albion, you almost appear to have a question without an answer. I've never seen you this way.

;)

[Albion]

Albion, you almost appear to have a question without an answer. I've never seen you this way.

;)

Well, Cola asked a good question that is often overlooked. Instead of saying "is there Apostolic Succession or not?" we also have to ask, "What does it do?"

That he touched upon this aspect of the question which is usually ignored is great, IMO. If anyone interested in the answer asks the appropriate questions, the answer will be there without the need for anyone to force it upon them.

The problem is that the point Cola raised (But I have yet to see in either Scripture or Tradition that the Sacraments are bound to it) is often not even considered. "Got Apostolic Succession? Yes? Then all that you teach is God's truth" is what many think.